U.O.I. AND ORS. versus BASHIR AHMED

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 725 · Decided: 02-05-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

U.0.1. AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
BASHIR AHMED 
MAY 2, 2006 
[ARIJIT PASA YAT AND TAR UN CHATTERJEE, JJ.] 
B 
Service Law: 
Pension-Entitlement to-Employee not completing requisite period of 
service as per Regulations and certificate of service-Held: The employee not C 
entitled to pension-Regulations for the Army, 1962-Para 134. 
Respondent was enrolled as sepoy in Army. He rendered service .for 9 
years 7 months and 27 days. The period included reserve service for 2 years. 
By Anny Instructions of I 976 the period of service required for entitlement D 
to pension was IS years with colours and 2 years in reserve. As such he was 
not entitled to pension. Respondent filed Writ Petition for direction to 
appellants to grant him pension. Single Judge as well as Division Bench of 
High Court in Letters Patent Appeal, held the respondent entitled to the benefit 
of pension. Review petition of appellants was dismissed. Hence.the present 
appeals. 
E 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: I. The entitlement to pension is dependent upon the prescriptions 
in the Army Instructions which are relatable to para 134 ofthe Regulations 
for the Army 1962, which required the period of requisite service to be IS p 
years in colours and 2 years in reserve. (728-B] 
2. Though the Division Bench looked at the original certificate of 
service and referred to the entry about rendition of IS years of reserve service, 
it failed to notice that the entry on the face of it was absurd. Jn the certificate 
of service itself it is clearly indicated that the date of.enrolment.is 9th January, G 
1969 and the certificate of service was issued on 26th September, 1978. That 
being so, the question of the respondent rendering more than IS years of 
reserved service did not arise. (727-H; 728-A-B) 
725 
H 
726 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. I S.C.R. 
A 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 4052-4053 of 
2004. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 16.9.2002 of the High Court of 
Jammu & Kashmir at Jammu in LP.A. (OW) No. 217/2002. 
B 
Vikas Singh, A.S.G., Indra Sawhney and Anil Katiyar and Sushma Suri 
c 
for the Appellants. 
P.D. Sharma for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Challenge in these appeals is to the legality of 
orders passed by a Division Bench of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court 
dismissing the Letters Patent Appeal filed by the appellants and the review 
application in respect of the said order. The High Court by the impugned 
judgment in the Letters Patent Appeal upheld the view of learned Single 
D Judge holding that the respondent is entitled to pension. 
Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: 
Respondent was enrolled as a Sepoy on 6. I. I 969. On 1.7.1976 respondent 
made a declaration in writing to undergo reserve service liability of two years 
E after discharge from service. 
The request of the respondent for discharge from Army service on 
companionate grounds was accepted and he was discharged and his name 
was struck out from the strength on 6.9. I 978. Thus he had rendered service 
for 9 years 7 months and 27 days in the Army which included some over stay 
F leave. With effect from 6.9. I 980 the respondent ceased to have any reserve 
liability. As such, according to the appellants, the respondent did not qualify 
for any pension in terms of the applicable regulations. On 21.2.2000 respondent 
filed a writ petition for a direction to the appellants to grant pension. Counter 
affidavit was filed in June, 2000. Learned Single Judge who disposed of the 
G writ petition by order dated 28.2.200 I proceeded on the basis that no counter 
affidavit had been filed. Therefore, the assertion of the appellant that he had 
rendered 15 years of service including reserve service and was accepted on 
this ground alone it was held that the respondent was entitled to pension and 
other benefits. Letters Patent Appeal was filed by present appellants taking 
a positive stand that a counter affidavit had in fact been filed, the question 
H 
U.0.1.ANDORS. v. BASHIR AHMED [PASAY AT,J.] 
727 ---
of the respondent rendering 15 years of service did not arise_a.,_J,~-~~-A 
appointed in January, 1969 and had _be~n.di•ohnrgeaTn T97S and the last two 
years service related to reserve service. He was not entitled to any pension 
because he had not completed the requisite period of service. The Division 
Bench referred to the certificate of service of the respondent and held that 
the same indicated 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.